DR. SOGA OGUNDALU V. CHIEF A. E. O. MACJOB.

CORAM

G. A. OGUNTADE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

M. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.B. WALL – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

M. S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

DR. SOGA OGUNDALU   APPELLANTS

CHIEF A. E. O. MACJOB.

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Defendant/Appellant approached the Plaintiff/Respondent who is the owner of the land in dispute and negotiated the plot for a piggery business which the Plaintiff/Respondent agreed to. The Plaintiff/Respondent instituted this action claiming a declaration that he is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect of the land, forfeiture, damages and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant and his privies from committing further acts of trespass on the said land. The Defendant counter claimed against the Plaintiff that the agreement reached between both parties was an agreement to assign the land in dispute and that the agreement was not a leasehold, an order of specific performance compelling the Plaintiff/Respondent to execute the relevant title documents in his favour and an order of perpetual injunction restraining him from disturbing his possession of the said land. At the end of the trial, the court entered judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent and dismissed the counter claim. Dissatisfied with the trial courts’ judgment, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal with cost against the Defendant/Appellant. He has further appealed against that decision.

HELD

Appeal succeeds in part

ISSUES

1. Whether the sale or lease of the land in dispute was valid?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in affirming an order of forfeiture in favour of the respondent after the court had found that all the ingredients of a leasehold have not been established by the respondent?

3. Whether the trial court and the court below were right in granting an order of declaration of title in favour of the respondent?

4. Whether the counterclaim of the appellant was rightly rejected by both courts below?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SALE OF LAND – WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO FULLY PAY THE PURCHASE PRICE, THERE CAN BE NO VALID SALE

“Where the purchase price is not fully paid there can be no valid sale even if the purchaser is in possession (as in this case). Where part payment of the purchase price was made and the purchaser defaults in paying the balance within a reasonable time the vendor would be at liberty to re-sell since legal title remains with the vendor until full price is paid by the purchaser”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

SALE OF LAND UNDER YORUBA CUSTOMARY LAW – A VALID SALE OF LAND UNDER YORUBA CUSTOMARY LAW IS CONSTITUTED ON THE PAYMENT OF THE FULL PURCHASE PRICE

“Under Yoruba Customary Law the full purchase price for the land must be paid before there is a valid sale. Where the defendant makes part payment and the balance remains unpaid the legal title remains with the plaintiff (vendor) until the full price is paid by the defendant (purchaser).” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

DECLARATIONS – DECLARATIONS CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE PARTY SEEKING IT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE COURTS DISCRETION EXERCISED IN HIS FAVOR

“In that regard declarations should only be made when the court is satisfied that the party seeking, it is entitled to have the courts discretion exercised in his favor”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE FUNCTION OF EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT AND ASCRIBING PROBATIVE VALUE TO SAME

“It is the duty of the trial judge to receive all relevant evidence. That is perception. The next duty is to weigh the evidence in the context of the surrounding circumstances of the case. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation. Evaluation of relevant evidence before the trial court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are primary functions of the trial court. This is so since that court saw, heard and watched the demeanour of the witnesses when they gave evidence. Consequently, where this is done, the Appeal Court should always be reluctant to differ from the trial judges finding. It is only where the trial court failed to evaluate such evidence properly that an appellate court can re-evaluate evidence. Furthermore, evaluation of a document is not within the exclusive preserve of the trial court. A trial court and an appellate court have equal rights in evaluation of documentary evidence. See Iwnoha & ors v. Nigeria Postal Services Ltd & ors (2003) 4 SC (pt ii) p37, State v. Rabiu (2013) 2-3 SC (pt iii) p63, Afolabi& 6 ors. v. Western Steel Works Ltd & 2 ors (2012)7SC(Pt iii) p.64, Haruna v. AG Federation (2012) 3 SC ( pt iv) p 40.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – DUTY OF APPELLATE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN PLACE OF TECHNICALITIES

“The trend in the Supreme Court and this court is to lean towards doing substantial justice in place of technicalities and strict legalism. See Nwosu V. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 125) p. 688 at p. 717; The State V. Gwonto & 4 Ors. (1983) 3 SC 62 at p. 76; U. B. A. V. Europharm (Nig) Ltd & Anor (1990) 6 NWLR (pt.155)239 T 242.” PER M.S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE ,J.S.C

LAND IN DISPUTE – LAND IN DISPUTE MUST BE ASCERTAINED WITH DEFINITIVE CERTAINTY FOR COURTS TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS ON SAME

“When the courts are to make pronouncements on land in dispute, it is mandatory that the land must be ascertained with definitive certainty and the reliable way to achieve this is for the plaintiff to produce a Survey Plan. See Arabe v. Asanlu(1980)5-7 SC P.78, Awomuti v. Salami (1978)5SC p.105.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

SALE OF LAND UNDER YORUBA CUSTOMARY LAW – INGREDIENTS THAT CONSTITUTE A VALID SALE UNDER YORUBA CUSTOMARY LAW

“In Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997)7SCNJ P.133. This court held that to constitute a valid sale of land under Yoruba Customary Law three essential ingredients are required, and they are:
1. Payment of the purchase price,
2. Purchaser is let into possession
3. In the presence of witnesses”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

TRANSMISSION OF INTEREST -THERE CAN BE NO VALID TRANSMISSION OF INTEREST WHERE PARTIES ARE NOT AD IDEM

“It goes without saying and the law affirms that, i.e where parties to a contract or agreement are not agreeable ad idem, there can be no valid transmission of interest.”PER M.S. MUNTAKA- COOMASSIE ,J.S.C

PLEADINGS – A PLAINTIFF MAY LEAD EVIDENCE TO DENY THE AVERMENT IN THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE WHERE HE FAILS TO FILE A REPLY TO DENY SAME

“The position of the law is that where the defendant avers to a fact in his statement of defence and the plaintiff fails to file a reply to deny the averment the plaintiff may lead evidence to deny the averment in the statement of defence. See BCCI v. Stephens Ltd (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 232) p.772, Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd v. Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1NWLR (pt 100) p.678.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

FORFEITURE – FORFEITURE CAN ONLY BE ORDERED TO DETERMINE A VALID LEASE

“Forfeiture on the grounds of misconduct or on any other ground can only be ordered to determined a valid lease.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS

“An appellate court would rarely upset concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below except where there has been exceptional circumstances such as the findings are found to be perverse or cannot be supported by evidence before the court, or there is a miscarriage of justice. See Haruna v. AG Federation (2012)3 SC (Pt. iv ) P.40, Adekoya v. State (2012) 3 SC(pt. iii) P 36.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

PLEADINGS – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

“If pleading are to be of any use, parties must be held bound by them See Akande vs Adisa & anor (2012) 5 SC (pt i) p.1, Ohochukwu vs A.G Rivers state & 2 ors (2012) 2 SC (pt ii) p 102.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE – WHERE A PARTY SUCCEEDS IN PROVING HIS CLAIM FOR A SMALLER AREA IN DISPUTE, JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE SMALLER AREA

“It is long settled that where in a claim for declaration of title over a large area of land, the plaintiff succeeds in proving his claim for a smaller area, judgment should be given for the smaller area provided it is the area in dispute. It is not the business of the court to spend judicial time resolving matters not in dispute.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

SALE OF LAND – WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO FULLY PAY THE PURCHASE PRICE, THERE CAN BE NO VALID SALE

“Where the purchase price is not fully paid there can be no valid sale even if the purchaser is in possession (as in this case). Where part payment of the purchase price was made and the purchaser defaults in paying the balance within a reasonable time the vendor would be at liberty to re-sell since legal title remains with the vendor until full price is paid by the purchaser”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Property and Conveyancing Law, Cap 100

Supreme Court Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT